Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: Protests and Riots, Same as it Ever Was

  1. #1
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947

    Protests and Riots, Same as it Ever Was

    Protests and Riots, Same as it Ever Was

    In the week since a Missouri grand jury returned no indictment against Darren Wilson, the killer of Michael Brown, a lot of whitesplaining has taken place, mostly from non-lawyers who deliberately or ignorantly misapprehend what a grand jury is and how it works. That’s before we get to Darren Wilson’s unvetted story.

    http://buffalopundit.com/2014/12/03/...s-it-ever-was/



    The Ferguson riots didn’t happen in a vacuum. It doesn’t matter anyway, because even when African-Americans have the audacity to protest peacefully – whether in Buffalo, Los Angeles, or St. Louis – there will be white people around to remind them that they’re being uppity, and that it’s not at all their place.
    I think Alan is twisting what various opinions are. I don't think people were saying they have the audacity to protest. I think people are referring to the looting and damage that was done. The protestors weren't being uppity, they were being destructive.

  2. #2
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    Protests and Riots, Same as it Ever Was


    http://buffalopundit.com/2014/12/03/...s-it-ever-was/

    I think Alan is twisting what various opinions are. I don't think people were saying they have the audacity to protest. I think people are referring to the looting and damage that was done. The protestors weren't being uppity, they were being destructive.
    It also matters as to what they are protesting. If they are protesting racial injustice in our government and non-government institutions, that's good.

    But if they are protesting Wilson's shooting of Brown, that's disingenuous and fair game for criticism and mockery.

    and regardless of the reason for their protest, if they are causing injury to others and damage to property, that's criminal behavior that should be prosecuted. Years of frustration do not justify running from a store with a tv in hand.

    More importantly, it is clear he has no concept of the role of a grand jury or the judicial process:

    Here are three facts: there was no trial, there was no verdict, and Darren Wilson was not found innocent, much less “not guilty”.
    And the reason that is true? Because after all the evidence was examined 12 ordinary citizens decided there was no set of facts under which Wilson could have been convicted of a crime. A grand jury only needs to find that there are facts that raise a the possibility that one might be guilty to return an indictment. A no true bill is a determination that there are no facts to support a possibility of a guilty verdict. That is way more compelling of "innocent" then a not-guilty verdict after trial.

    Think of it like a rape case. Sally says John raped her. John denies it. There is evidence of sexual activity between Sally and a man. there is evidence that John might have been with Sally at the time of the alleged rape. there is probabl cause to indict.

    Now take a case where the grand jury evidence shows Sally is a virgin, has never had sex, and that John was stationed in Iraq at the time Sally claims he raped her in Chicago. There is no probable cause to indict John for rape simply because Sally wants a trial.

    That's the purpose of a grand jury - to filter out the probably from the no evidence to support the claim cases.

    Those 12 ordinary citizens decided there was no evidence to support the possibility that Wilson committed a crime. That is way more exculpatory than a not guilty verdict at a trial.

  3. #3
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    It also matters as to what they are protesting. If they are protesting racial injustice in our government and non-government institutions, that's good.

    Don't confuse protest with "looting"

  4. #4
    Member BorderBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Alan and I traded tweets today on the value of an indictment in a case that would ultimately be....unwinnable. Sure, you could have ignored the evidence of justification and taken the statements of subsequently discredited witnesses just for the sake of having a trial. End of the day though you would have had an acquittal, the same decision which the Grand Jury arrived at.

    Only winner in that scenario are the lawyers.





    b.b.

  5. #5
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by BorderBob View Post
    Alan and I traded tweets today on the value of an indictment in a case that would ultimately be....unwinnable. Sure, you could have ignored the evidence of justification and taken the statements of subsequently discredited witnesses just for the sake of having a trial. End of the day though you would have had an acquittal, the same decision which the Grand Jury arrived at.

    Only winner in that scenario are the lawyers.





    b.b.
    But the loser in that scenario would be the American people and our Constitution.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,672
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    But the loser in that scenario would be the American people and our Constitution.
    ...and perhaps the winners would be the business owners who lost thier livelihood as it went up in smoke...and the taxpayers( those who work and pay taxes) who will ultimately pay for the for the destruction and salaries of the enforcement of those trying to enforce PEACE!!
    Hey..."BURN THAT B@TCH"!

  7. #7
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by joe d. View Post
    ...and perhaps the winners would be the business owners who lost thier livelihood as it went up in smoke...and the taxpayers( those who work and pay taxes) who will ultimately pay for the for the destruction and salaries of the enforcement of those trying to enforce PEACE!!
    Hey..."BURN THAT B@TCH"!
    Nope. The same thing would happen after a not guilty verdict. the Michael Brown believers are not impressed by facts.

  8. #8
    Member BorderBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    But the loser in that scenario would be the American people and our Constitution.
    How? The Grand Jury process is unconstitutional now? Grand Jury's are the process, the filter. I hear people talk about Wilson (and now this cop in NYC) not being held accountable. He was held accountable, by the Grand Jury who said there was no criminal conduct.

    The other thing I don't hear the punditistas talking about is that when the police do something, it IS different from when a citizen does it. Police are not required to retreat, not required to ignore "little laws" (a term I heard tonite on CNN) Once you are placed under arrest, you comply. You resist, force will be used to overcome the resistance. In both these cases, had they submitted to arrest (no one seems to be challenging the violation) they would both be alive right now.



    b.b.
    Last edited by BorderBob; December 3rd, 2014 at 09:31 PM.

  9. #9
    Member buffalopundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    I think Alan is twisting what various opinions are. I don't think people were saying they have the audacity to protest. I think people are referring to the looting and damage that was done. The protestors weren't being uppity, they were being destructive.
    In the passage you have to put the emphasis on "even when". Even when African-Americans protest peacefully - block traffic, stage a sit-in, march, or when some football players enter the stadium with hands up - even then people give them crap. I wasn't talking about rioting or destructive behavior.
    This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.

  10. #10
    Member buffalopundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by BorderBob View Post
    How? The Grand Jury process is unconstitutional now? Grand Jury's are the process, the filter. I hear people talk about Wilson (and now this cop in NYC) not being held accountable. He was held accountable, by the Grand Jury who said there was no criminal conduct.

    The other thing I don't hear the punditistas talking about is that when the police do something, it IS different from when a citizen does it. Police are not required to retreat, not required to ignore "little laws" (a term I heard tonite on CNN) Once you are placed under arrest, you comply. You resist, force will be used to overcome the resistance. In both these cases, had they submitted to arrest (no one seems to be challenging the violation) they would both be alive right now.



    b.b.
    The grand jury construct is quite old and although it has a fact-finding function, it serves as little more than a prosecutorial rubber-stamp. Usually; (hence the "ham sandwich" quip everyone repeated this week).

    The grand jury process is secret, one-sided, and completely controlled by law enforcement. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, he'll get one. By the same token, if he doesn't, there are tools at his disposal to avoid one. Compound that with the relationship that DAs have with police on a day-to-day basis, and cops will be very well coached on what to say to avoid an indictment.

    I breezed through some of the other threads about Ferguson and noticed a lot of disagreement over key facts of the case. A lot of it had to do with people taking Wilson's testimony as gospel truth, and completely disregarding (if mentioning at all) any contrary evidence.

    That is why there should have been an indictment and a trial. That is why Wilson's statements - as well as the testimony of every witness - should have been run through the system and its truth-finding mechanisms of cross-examination, credibility, etc.

    With the NYC case, it's even more horrible because we have video of the actual event, and no one thinks that Eric Garner was acting violently or deserved to die.

    With respect to Garner: sure, maybe he should have gone along quietly. But you know what? Sometimes you catch someone on a bad day, or they're angry at being targeted, and they refuse to do so. The police have the right to arrest, I suppose - but in this case query whether they could have just given him an appearance ticket and gone away. When arresting, they have the right to use reasonable force under the circumstances. Chokeholds are prohibited by NYPD policy. In this case, when Garner said, "I can't breathe", they should have taken their arms away from his windpipe. They killed him - the coroner said so. If the 6 cops you have responding to a piddly "selling loosies" call isn't enough, send for backup I guess, but don't use excessive force.

    With respect to Michael Brown - here, too, even if you take what Wilson says at face value, there were at least 100 ways that encounter could have ended without a barrage of bullets at a kid who was 150 feet away. Cops are supposed to be trained professionals - we talk about how they put themselves at risk (and they do), but their position conveys upon them heightened responsibilities, as well as rights. Brown wasn't using deadly force against anyone. Deadly force was not justified in order to arrest him or get him to move onto the sidewalk.

    In any event, all of these issues get resolved within the context of proper trials. Grand jury proceedings are not trials, they're not public, they don't result in findings of guilt or innocence. All of it is a tragedy, and ultimately reveals the horrible tolerance Americans have for violence.
    This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.

  11. #11
    Member Save Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,407
    Quote Originally Posted by buffalopundit View Post
    The grand jury construct is quite old and although it has a fact-finding function, it serves as little more than a prosecutorial rubber-stamp. Usually; (hence the "ham sandwich" quip everyone repeated this week).

    The grand jury process is secret, one-sided, and completely controlled by law enforcement. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, he'll get one. By the same token, if he doesn't, there are tools at his disposal to avoid one. Compound that with the relationship that DAs have with police on a day-to-day basis, and cops will be very well coached on what to say to avoid an indictment.

    I breezed through some of the other threads about Ferguson and noticed a lot of disagreement over key facts of the case. A lot of it had to do with people taking Wilson's testimony as gospel truth, and completely disregarding (if mentioning at all) any contrary evidence.

    That is why there should have been an indictment and a trial. That is why Wilson's statements - as well as the testimony of every witness - should have been run through the system and its truth-finding mechanisms of cross-examination, credibility, etc.

    With the NYC case, it's even more horrible because we have video of the actual event, and no one thinks that Eric Garner was acting violently or deserved to die.

    With respect to Garner: sure, maybe he should have gone along quietly. But you know what? Sometimes you catch someone on a bad day, or they're angry at being targeted, and they refuse to do so. The police have the right to arrest, I suppose - but in this case query whether they could have just given him an appearance ticket and gone away. When arresting, they have the right to use reasonable force under the circumstances. Chokeholds are prohibited by NYPD policy. In this case, when Garner said, "I can't breathe", they should have taken their arms away from his windpipe. They killed him - the coroner said so. If the 6 cops you have responding to a piddly "selling loosies" call isn't enough, send for backup I guess, but don't use excessive force.

    With respect to Michael Brown - here, too, even if you take what Wilson says at face value, there were at least 100 ways that encounter could have ended without a barrage of bullets at a kid who was 150 feet away. Cops are supposed to be trained professionals - we talk about how they put themselves at risk (and they do), but their position conveys upon them heightened responsibilities, as well as rights. Brown wasn't using deadly force against anyone. Deadly force was not justified in order to arrest him or get him to move onto the sidewalk.

    In any event, all of these issues get resolved within the context of proper trials. Grand jury proceedings are not trials, they're not public, they don't result in findings of guilt or innocence. All of it is a tragedy, and ultimately reveals the horrible tolerance Americans have for violence.
    Interesting....

    So in your opinion the grand Jury should have indicted? Forget for a minute that half the cops are killed with their own guns, and MB was not a gentle giant, is the default that a cop or person can use deadly force to stop flight of a perpetrator who commited a violent crime? If I am not wrong in NY you can. Again you can use deadly force when you believe your life is in danger but can you to stop flight? Is assault on a cop worthy of that?

    Forget trying to hold onto a firearm I wont get into what most average build men would feel if they were getting thumped by a 6-4 300 lb person.

  12. #12
    Member buffalopundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Us View Post
    Interesting....

    So in your opinion the grand Jury should have indicted? Forget for a minute that half the cops are killed with their own guns, and MB was not a gentle giant, is the default that a cop or person can use deadly force to stop flight of a perpetrator who commited a violent crime? If I am not wrong in NY you can. Again you can use deadly force when you believe your life is in danger but can you to stop flight? Is assault on a cop worthy of that?

    Forget trying to hold onto a firearm I wont get into what most average build men would feel if they were getting thumped by a 6-4 300 lb person.
    In my opinion, there was enough evidence - a dead body with 6 bullets in it - to support a finding that probable cause existed that a crime related to unreasonable force had been committed, requiring a trial.

    Every single supposed fact that you or I might present or cite is just that - supposed. (Well, except for the fact that Wilson was also 6' 4"). No facts were found. No verdict was rendered.
    This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.

  13. #13
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by buffalopundit View Post
    In my opinion, there was enough evidence - a dead body with 6 bullets in it - to support a finding that probable cause existed that a crime related to unreasonable force had been committed, requiring a trial.

    Every single supposed fact that you or I might present or cite is just that - supposed. (Well, except for the fact that Wilson was also 6' 4"). No facts were found. No verdict was rendered.
    Fortunately that is not the way our our system works. A dead body is not evidence of a crime. Even causing a death is not evidence of a crime. Thousands of people die in hospitals every day. You think all the doctors and nurses should be indicted in every instance so there can be a trial?

    The purpose of a grand jury is to stand between the king and the people, to prevent unwarranted charges manifesting into a trial. the evidence was overwhelming that a crime had not been committed by the officer.

    Putting him and his family through a trial because Brown's parents can't accept that their son's criminal behavior was the cause of his death would be a real injustice.

  14. #14
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by buffalopundit View Post
    The grand jury process is secret, one-sided, and completely controlled by law enforcement. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, he'll get one.
    While it is true that it is relatively easy for the government to obtain an indictment through a grand jury, there are a significant number of instances in which a grand jury does not indict despite the wishes of the prosecutor. More importantly, because the standard for indictment is so low, a grand jury that does not indict has essentially fond that there are no facts that would support even the probability that a crime has been committed.

    Quote Originally Posted by buffalopundit View Post
    A lot of it had to do with people taking Wilson's testimony as gospel truth, and completely disregarding (if mentioning at all) any contrary evidence.
    That's because there wasn't any credible "contrary" evidence. Nothing to disregard.

  15. #15
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by BorderBob View Post
    How? The Grand Jury process is unconstitutional now? Grand Jury's are the process, the filter. I hear people talk about Wilson (and now this cop in NYC) not being held accountable. He was held accountable, by the Grand Jury who said there was no criminal conduct.

    The other thing I don't hear the punditistas talking about is that when the police do something, it IS different from when a citizen does it. Police are not required to retreat, not required to ignore "little laws" (a term I heard tonite on CNN) Once you are placed under arrest, you comply. You resist, force will be used to overcome the resistance. In both these cases, had they submitted to arrest (no one seems to be challenging the violation) they would both be alive right now.



    b.b.
    I was commenting about your "trial scenario" - the american people in general, and Officer Wilson in particular, would have suffered a loss if he had been indicted just to assuage a social construct. Michael Brown's parents need to deal with their son's unlawful behavior that resulted in his death.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Police incite Violance... Push for riots at protests.
    By FMD in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 28th, 2010, 11:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •